from the say-what-now? dept

Well, it's been a little over a week since Chris Dodd embraced the fact that he was a liar concerning his post-Senate career, and embraced this by misrepresenting the biggest issues facing the movie industry. In that week, he's apparently been reading from the MPAA "book of propaganda" and is getting better at it. In a speech to theater owners, he's tied together so many falsehoods that someone might actually believe some of them! I've embedded the whole speech below -- it's really a piece of work -- but let's dig into a few sections.

Letís begin with perhaps the single biggest threat we face as an industry: movie theft. At the outset, I want you to know that I recognize and appreciate that NATO members are on the front lines every day when it comes to preventing camcording. Further, I want you to know that the member studios of the MPAA deeply appreciate the efforts you make every day to stop the hemorrhaging of movie theft in your theaters.

Let's begin with perhaps the single biggest lie: that copyright infringement is "theft." It's not. Stop saying it is. It makes you look like a dishonest fool, who is in no way capable of actually helping the movie industry adapt to the changing marketplace. As for the "camcording" threat, the MPAA still loves to talk this up, but still ignores the fact that the real issue is industry insiders leaking movies themselves...

Nearly 2.5 million people work in our film industry. The success of the movie and TV business doesnít just benefit the names on theater marquees. It also affects all the names in the closing credits and so many more Ėmiddle class folks, working hard behind the scenes to provide for their families, saving for college and retirement. And since movies and TV shows are now being made in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, movie theft harms middle class families and small businesses all across the country.

Those who steal movies and TV shows, or who knowingly support those who do, donít see the faces of the camera assistant, seamstresses, electricians, construction workers, drivers, and small business owners and their employees who are among the thousands essential to movie making. They donít see the teenager working their first job taking tickets at the local theater, or the video rental store employees working hard to support their families.

Yeah, this has become a favorite trope of the industry lately. About all those poor key grips suffering from movie infringement. Of course, this is also a lie. File sharing has no direct impact on those people at all. They don't make any royalties on films. They were paid (not particularly well by the MPAA studios, mind you) for the job that they did, and move on to the next job. Where they suffer is when the MPAA and its member studios fail to embrace smarter business models, such that they have trouble financing new movies. But, as we've seen, the box office continues to do well, and indie filmmakers who are embracing new models are doing increasingly well. Perhaps the issue is that the MPAA should be helping filmmakers understand and embrace new models.

But I guess that's just outside of Dodd's realm of expertise.

We must continue to work together, pushing for stronger laws to protect intellectual property and more meaningful enforcement of those laws. We must also educate parents and students and everyone else about the real world impact of movie theft on jobs and on local tax revenues, and on our ability to make the kinds of movies and TV shows people wish to see.

Fascinating that he claims this in the weeks after two separate, well respected research organizations both pointed to tons of evidence that stronger enforcement doesn't work. Nice work, Chris, you're parroting the failed policies of your predecessors, rather than showing any form of leadership.

After three decades in Congress, I have some idea how to attract the attention of a Congressman or Senator. When you return to your states, invite your local governor, state legislator, congressman and senator to your theater and fill it with those who work with you along with video store employees and their families. Tell them about the importance of these issues to you and to your communities. If you become that educator, you will leave a lasting and indelible impression on those who will make decisions about your future.

In other words, show them a good time, since the logic behind our positions makes no sense at all. However, if we entertain them for free, perhaps they'll feel indebted to give us protectionist, anti-competitive, anti-innovation policies that will help us wring a few extra dollars out of consumers, rather than innovating to add more value.

What Iím about to say isnít quantifiable in economic terms. I canít put a dollar figure on it for you. I canít give you an unemployment number or some other gripping statistic Ė but as I stand before you this morning one week into this job, I want you to know that it is as important as all data you will have thrown at you during CinemaCon. Our lives are getting more and more complicated. We are increasingly connected to the world by the power of emerging technologies, but at the same time we seem to be increasingly disconnected from each other by the same technology and stream of information and distractions.

And yet, in the midst of all of this, if you drop by a movie theater in America or anywhere around the world on a Friday or Saturday night you will see neighborhoods coming together. You will see people turning off their phones and BlackBerrys. You will see families and friends settling in for two hours in a darkened theater. And even though everyoneís eyes are on the screen, it is somehow still a communal experience Ė unlike any other. The value of that shared experience crosses economic, political and even generational boundaries.

Going to the movies together as a community has stitched together the fabric of American society in a way that few other institutions ever have or could, providing a nation of incredible diversity with a common cultural vocabulary and a common understanding of ourselves. Whatís at stake as we face these challenges is nothing short of the preservation and renewal of this quintessentially American communal tradition.

If I'm reading this correctly, he's basically debunking the entire first part of his speech. The thing is, that "shared experience" is the same thing we've been talking about on Techdirt for ages. It's why the movie industry shouldn't fear file sharing. It should be working towards improving and enhancing that shared experience, because that kind of shared experience can't be pirated.

I find it hilarious that Dodd appears to be suggesting that if the MPAA doesn't get stricter enforcement laws, people will suddenly stop wanting to come together as a community to share such experiences. Does anyone take this kind of thing seriously?

Reader Comments

I usually do not nit pick the posts over things like acronyms but please tell me the NATO referenced here is N? A? Theater Owners. Although I can almost see getting the more famous NATO involved in Copyright matters if ICE doesn't step up its game and get more aggressive :)

Re: Re: Re:

FTFY Chris...

Letís begin with perhaps the single biggest threat we face as a Country: cultural theft. At the outset, I want you to know that I recognize and appreciate that MPAA members are on the front lines every day when it comes to practicing cultural theft. Further, I want you to know that the member studios of the MPAA deeply appreciate the efforts you make every day to ignore the hemorrhaging of cultural theft that we are engaged in. Without the ignorance and apathy of the general public, and , we wouldn't be able to steal your culture and sell it back to you over and over again to continue to make the obscene profits we have become accustomed and entitled to.

We must continue to work together, pushing for stronger laws to protect intellectual property and more meaningful enforcement of those laws is the only thing we know how to do these days. We must also educate parents and students and everyone else about the real world impact of cultural theft on jobs and on local tax revenues, and how our ability to steal your culture can have a direct impact on on our ability to make the kinds of profits that we wish to see.

This is a line right out of a movie...

"Nearly 2.5 million people work in our film industry. The success of the movie and TV business doesnít just benefit the names on theater marquees. It also affects all the names in the closing credits and so many more Ė middle class folks, working hard behind the scenes to provide for their families, saving for college and retirement."

The highlighted part above is right out of a movie and should read: "little people, like you Clark".

Re: Re: This is a line right out of a movie...

There have been very few improvements in the theater experience

I have been going to the movies since the early 80's and there have been very few improvements in the theater experience. The ones that come to mind are stadium seating, better seats and better sound. Little else has changed except the ever increasing price of snacks.

At home though, lots have changed. I have a 5.1 surround sound stereo, a beautiful 46" flat panel TV and as comfortable chairs & couches as I desire. I also have very cheap snacks and oh yea, beer. :)

So the threat isn't pirating, it especially isn't camcording, it is the greatly improved experience of home theater. In other words, the business model must adapt.

Re: There have been very few improvements in the theater experience

You forgot one important difference between the movie theater experience and the home theater experience: No other people. You don't get those annoying people who constantly talk during the film, who treat going to the movies as a social event.

You also do not have to deal with those parents who decide that they really really want to see Saw 4627 (or whatever number they're up to now) but they cannot find a babysitter ó and obviously cannot wait for a night when they CAN find a babysitter ó so they take their little six-year-old child with them. That is always a fun experience.

Re: Re: There have been very few improvements in the theater experience

That's the "community experience"! What other time would you talk to your next-door neighbor, but in the middle of a crowded theater? That's what everyone goes to the theater for. Community!

On a side note, I can't believe the condition of the theaters in my area. They are always filthy, and I'm always sticking to things. Plus, the chairs reek. I actually worked at a theater when I was in high school, and we had to sweep AND mop theaters in between rushes. (That's what you called them, 'cause all of the movies started within 30 minutes of each other.)

Re: What a bunch of garbage!

"Theft" is generally used as a lay term for "civil and/or criminal copyright infringement (copying and/or distributing)".

"Sharing" is generally used as a lay term for "civil and/or criminal copyright infringement (copying and/or distributing)".

Each side of the aisle uses words that they believe promote their positions in public discourse. To pillory one side for the word it chooses to use without noting the other side engages in the same activity is in my view a bit dishonest.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

But calling it copyright infringement doesn't have the same moral heft to it. It's also too long to say. That's like, 6 whole syllables. Steal! It's just so much easier to get one's point across with fewer monosyllabic sounds; who cares if you're being dishonest.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I'm confused. Are you implying that when I distribute mp3s I'm "dividing" my music into smaller portions to be distributed among my friends? That would be a pretty annoying way of listening to music if you only got to download the second verse, and had to find my friend Billy to hear the bridge, and find Mary to listen to the chorus.

Hell, if enough people keep dividing the file to take their share, then the next thing you know all I'll be streaming are millisecond-long bleeps.

I guess you could trade the pieces, make copies... wait! *That's* the word we're looking for. Copy! We make copies, we distribute copies, we allow copies to be made.

Excuse me now, I have to go share some paperwork with the office Xerox machine.

Re: Re: Re:

Except "sharing" is a technical term used in networking to describe the interaction between computers on a network. You can share your printer, scanner, harddrive, etc. On a network so that others can use it. If you try to "steal" a harddrive on a network, you will need a screw driver (at least)

Re:

There is a bit of a difference though...

Infringement really isn't theft. You are not taking away anything.

When we talk about file sharing, the term works just fine. This is because "sharing" does not necessarily imply you don't have access to the resource you are sharing. If I share a cab with you, I still get where I am going. If I share a thought with you, I still have the thought. If I share a file with you, I still have the file. I might even share the file by creating a "shared file" (terms used in Linux, Mac OS, Windows).

If we talk about "sharing," it is absolutely true that the term does cover usages that are not infringement. All of the examples above cover perfectly legal examples of sharing (assuming the file I share with you is mine to share to begin with).

So to summarize: Theft cannot by any stretch cover infringement as it simply doesn't describe what is going on. Sharing absolutely describes what is going on, but perhaps intentionally ignores the issue of the legality of what is going on.

Sadly, most of the mechanisms put into practice to stop infringement do so by limiting file sharing. And I use that last term literally, since the limits fall equally on both on infringement and on actual legal sharing.

When people like myself worry that "file sharing" is being targeted by the likes of Big Content, it is most accurately described as "file sharing" as the impact of their policies are exactly an attack on "file sharing" both legal and illegal.

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

I happen to agree w/you. Using language to color the argument is silly on both sides. It's called copyright infringement, so why can't we all just use that (in cases of infringement, not sharing legally)?

Playing games with language does nothing but slow down the eventual resolution to the debate....

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Wholeheartedly agree. It is "infringement", which is almost always a civil law matter...but can in some very limited circumstances can be a criminal law matter.

For one side to bellow "theft" and the other to bellow "sharing" diverts attention from the real issues at hand.

In courts of law these two words fall by the wayside because the issue is always "Are the acts complained of infringement within the meaning of copyright law?" They do not detract and take the court's attention away from the matter at hand.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said in ordinary public discourse. Tempers flare and nothing is added to the conversation as each side hunkers down behind its chosen word. It sorta reminds me of trench warfare from WWI. Lots of shots fired, but no ground gained by either side.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I disagree, we failed as a society to protect our foundations, the law failed to protect society.

Infringement accusations detracts attention from the principal point and that is sharing is in general a good thing that creates more opportunities that it destroy them, sharing is what allow us as a group to progress and move forward how did we let it be transformed into something illegal?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

In the wider debate, I can't quite buy that logic, although I am sympathetic to it. The problem I see is that it is often hard to tell whether someone that shares content has the right to do so (eg, copyright owners "leaking" their own content). The term "sharing" may sound more innocent, but it is much more appropriate than either "theft" or "infringement" when the provenance of shared material is in doubt, since it is an inclusive term (legally speaking). In this situation however, I agree that the most accurate term Dodd could have used is in fact infringement.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Nope, totally wrong. No, I'm not saying that I disagree with you, I'm saying your logic is flawed. "Sharing" is neutral, as many files are shared legitimately. Take a look at the gigs of files on Archive.org for starters, and they have begun to use bittorent.
"Infringement" and "Theft" are both laws that are broken. "Infringement" can occur during "sharing", but "theft" cannot. If a person has a picture sitting near their window, and I take a photo of it, is it "theft"? No, certainly not. It may or may not be "infringement", depending on if it was a picture of Elvis or the Mona Lisa, but it would only be "theft" if I actually reached in the window and took the picture.
The fact is, using the term "sharing" is accurate, while "theft" is actually a form of propaganda, as is "freetard" and whatever other names you care to use. These terms have derogatory connotations on an emotional, rather than rational, level.
One of the ways I can judge that I am on the right side of this arguement is, when dealing with the other side as a whole, the term is "copyright maximalist." I don't see any negativity, emotional or otherwise, in that term.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Nope, totally wrong. No, I'm not saying that I disagree with you, I'm saying your logic is flawed. "Sharing" is neutral, as many files are shared legitimately."

I think if you look back at my comment, you'll note that I specified that I was talking about actual infringing sharing, so not sure why you think I'm wrong?

"The fact is, using the term "sharing" is accurate, while "theft" is actually a form of propaganda, as is "freetard" and whatever other names you care to use."

Simply saying "sharing" to describe an act of infringement is no more accurate than calling it theft. Pretending otherwise is silly....

"One of the ways I can judge that I am on the right side of this arguement is, when dealing with the other side as a whole, the term is "copyright maximalist." I don't see any negativity, emotional or otherwise, in that term."

Uh, you don't? The "other side" likely have degrees of opinion difference every bit as nuanced as our side. To label them copyright maximalists not only is innaccurate, but the maximalist term also has negative connotations to it. I'm surprised you don't see that....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, I would have to say I don't see that. If they refered to us as "Sharing Maximalists" or "Free Maximalists" or "Copyright Minimalists", I really don't see or feel any slight or insult. I can't say the same for "freetard". I also don't understand how "copyright maximalist" could be considered innacurate, as the laws on the books have been shown by multiple studies to be far beyond what is required or even effective for the stated purpose of copyright, which is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." I guess, to make things even more PC, we should describe the other group as "Those Who Consider Current Intellectual Property Protections Inadequate."

In answer to the question about sharing, simple logic. An elephant is an elephant if it's gray or blue. Saying, "Don't call it an elephant if it's gray, only if it's blue" doesn't make any sense, and I think you can see this. Sharing is sharing, whether it is infringing or no.

I applaud your effort to find common ground with Those Who Consider Current Intellectual Property Protections Inadequate. But ya gotta make sense, dude.

Re:

Are you saying that sharing is not a human trait?
That legal concepts will somehow override human nature?
That legal concepts take precedence against social needs?
Make no mistake sharing is a social need, it is one of the pillars that sustain all societies. It is the thing that allows group of people to achieve greater things, to create markets and thus real wealth.

So thus not seem just a bit odd that we turned something so important into something illegal?

Typo

Why would anyone listen to that stupid, lying POS?

Dodd is just another of so many paid liars for the industry, and giving him any credibility is something only complete morons and Hollywood shills do. As the rest of them do, he just makes up bogus crap to support their point of view, and then regurgitates it to the mass of morons that comprise the vast majority of the voters in this country, most of whom lack any ability to think critically, and prefer to wallow on their couches nightly and be spoon fed drivel by the crooks and liars in Hollywood and the "entertainment" business. How they ever got to be considered as entertainment is beyond me, and I am now seriously considering dropping the television portion of my cable service, since there is nothing on that I watch anymore, except for the occasional HBO series such as the Sopranos, for which I gladly pay the premium.

I sometimes think I would pirate things myself, but there just really isn't anything worth pirating. All that trouble, just to watch low quality crap? Hell, I won't watch it for free, and most of it would require that I get paid to watch it, due to the enormous waste of my time. Screw the "entertainment industry" and their pack of lying puppets, and really shitty products!

"Our lives are getting more and more complicated. We are increasingly connected to the world by the power of emerging technologies, but at the same time we seem to be increasingly disconnected from each other by the same technology and stream of information and distractions."

emerging technologies like the Internet? Talk about being behind the times...

Movie "theft"

Since Dodd is a career politician, I already know that any time his lips move he is most likely prevaricating, but just for fun, I was just looking at MPAA.org to see the official stance there, and they freely and often use the term "movie theft" to describe infringement; in fact, they never use infringement at all that I can find in the FAQ.

And for the AC who said:

"Theft" is generally used as a lay term for "civil and/or criminal copyright infringement (copying and/or distributing)".

"Sharing" is generally used as a lay term for "civil and/or criminal copyright infringement (copying and/or distributing)".

If I take your Spice Girls CD, I've stolen it and you can't listen to it (and fap).

If I make a copy of your CD, you still have your CD and nothing has been stolen from you, but I do have a copy of some worthless drivel.

Dodd Shmodd

As a congressman Chris Dodd is one of the main architects of the financial crisis that is still upon us. If the entire movie industry went away it would be but a mere fraction of the damage he personally has done to the economy. Let us hope that can do for the MPAA what he has done for America. And to the stupid fools that kept voting this corrupt moron into office, may you rot in hell.

Re: Dodd Shmodd

My Debunking

Movie Theft: I don't need to spell it out, file sharing is not theft, as the original movie is still there.
"NATO members are on the front lines every day when it comes to preventing camcording" Okay, camcording what? You need to be a bit specific. Also, does he actually mean that NATO soldiers are in our theaters watching us, probably armed? Or on the "front lines" of combat: so that's why America invaded Iraq! It wasn't oil or to topple Saddam, it was to stop camcording in cinemas!
"But I for one do not believe the sky is falling. Yes, people have a wider variety of entertainment options
these days. Yes, gas prices have gone up. But you have seen attendance ebb and flow in the past, and I believe audiences will be coming back to your theaters to see our films because there really is no parallel to the incredible experience that we, together, provide." If the sky isn't falling and you treat this drop in profits/attendance as merely a temporary thing, something that will more or less resolve itself without any effort on your part, then why are you so vocal about copyright infringement?

And about the 2.5 million workers...so technological innovation has to be crippled before it has a chance to sign merely because these people have jobs? What about when the automobile was invented, and thousands of people involved with horses lost their jobs? Should the car have been banned because some people lost jobs?

"When China limits the import of non-Chinese films to 20 a year, despite the fact that hundreds of U.S. films are produced each year Ė including more than 100 by the MPAA member studios Ė we are excluded from a market that presents huge untapped potential." What does that have to do with movie theft? Sounds like a problem for the Secretary of Foreign Affairs (or whatever the position is called in the US government)

"invite your local governor, state legislator, congressman and senator to your theater and fill it with those who work with you along with video store employees and their families." Are you going to charge admission? Or are these people going to...gasp...see a movie for free!

"I canít put a dollar figure on it for you. I canít give you an unemployment number or some other gripping statistic" You. Can't. Put. A. Number. On. It. What has the MPAA been doing for decades but putting dollar figures and unemployment figures. Just a couple of paragraphs ago, you said 2.5 million people would lose their jobs! This guy can't stay consistent from paragraph to paragraph!

And then the crap about cinema being the quintessential American communal experience. THE quintessential? As in, there is no other greater communal experience than being in a darkened room, staring at a screen for two hours and shutting up/annoying others? I don't know what's scarier, that it might actually be true, or that this guy actually believes this.

Phones

camcords, not insiders

Can you back up your claim that the "real issue" is industry insiders leaking films rather than camcording? I don't think so... sure, the odd screener appears and - very occasionally - something appears pre-release from a workprint, but the vast majority of films still appear via camcords. If you want stats, I can supply them.

Re: camcords, not insiders

Re: Re: camcords, not insiders

The first study you link to focuses on DVD copies that appear some time after the film hits theatres and once pirated versions from camcords are already released. Saying these are leaked by 'movie industry insiders' is stretching it a bit. They are coming from holes in the manufacturing and distribution process once the discs have gone to be pressed. It gets a bit difficult to control 100,000 DVD copies. This is usually a good few months after the film has been in theatres and once a Camcord copy has been out for a good long time. So if 'movie industry insider' = some bloke at a warehouse for shipping out DVDs, then sure. It's insiders. If you mean someone involved in making the film, then no. It's not.

The second article jumps from a paragraph about India which says that 90% of pirated films are camcords to the study above which looked at movie releases worldwide. India has a unique movie industry and a different piracy lifecycle to many other countries: high quality pirated versions - yes, mostly from camcords - appear either the same day a film hits the theatres in the country or in some cases before. In the west, it's a good few days before the first camcords tend to show up.

"Poor" Grips my ass

Back when I was in the biz (20 years ago now) the only "poorly paid" people were the non-union extras, who were paid minimum wage. Everyone else started at around 4x min.wage for the very bottom end (and a typical day includes 4 hours of overtime at double pay), and I personally saw pay stubs of over $1000 per DAY for drivers and key grips. And scale (minimum pay) for actors was $1000/day as well. Most actors DON'T make their living from royalties, but rather a day-wage that's paid up front just like everyone else. I also personally saw some royalty checks for amounts like 35 cents, and this was LONG before filesharing.

Oh yeah, really terrible pay scales, because the industry can't afford any better after all that piracy. And royalties are so significant... to the company that owns the marketing rights, maybe, but not to ANYONE else.

"They donít see the teenager working their first job taking tickets at the local theater."

Hi, teenager working my first job at the local theatre here. I'd just like to point out a few things:

1) We aren't part of the movie industry, we're a seperate entity that has distribution deals with the production companies.

2) Almost all of our money is made from food, because the production companies insist on taking nearly 100% of the profits from ticket sales. It's why theatre food is so expensive.

3) Piracy does not effect our business, because the people that would pirate a movie wouldn't have seen it if they had to pay for it anyway. What does effect our business, is Hollywood churning out terrible movies to make a quick profit instead of releasing quality films. The Devil Inside is a good example.

When Hollywood does this, people are more inclined to pirate. As Gabe Newell said, piracy is a service problem. If Chris Dodd and the MPAA has a problem with piracy, all they need to do is release good quality movies and more people will pay to see them.